ILNews

Opinions Oct. 30, 2013

October 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49S02-1302-CT-89
Civil tort. Holds Kesling’s fraud claim survives summary judgment but her deception claims do not. Advertising a car as “sporty car at a great value price” is not a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But stating that a car “would just need a tune-up,” in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that it had far more serious problems, does represent a fact and therefore may be the basis of a fraud claim when a seller gives it as a knowingly incomplete answer to a buyer’s specific question.

Wednesday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Danner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-PC-146
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Delmar P. Kuchaes v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
53A04-1206-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Grants rehearing after originally dismissing appeal and finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kuchaes’ motion to continue; in certain evidentiary rulings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to amend the pleadings; in denying Kuchaes’ motion to reopen; and in the award of attorneys fees.

Christopher Peelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1301-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felonies dealing in methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

Jose A. Bonilla v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1303-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony child molestation conviction.

Kendrick Atkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1303-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

Marcus Anthony Johnson Revocable Trust and The Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals Division No. 1 v. Westchester Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1302-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Westchester Estate Homeowners Association and other appellees and the denial of summary judgment in favor of the trust and board of zoning appeals regarding a zoning variance. 

Lawrence Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction to serve the remainder of Harris’ sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT